27 January, 2017

The
augmentation of a certain confession of faith does not necessarily imply that
it has been corrupted. It is self-evident that during the true, spiritual
development of a church, the need may be felt and begin to assert itself for
enlargement of the confessions. Such development and expansion of the
confessions may take place in harmony with the fundamental principles of the
original confessions and may even be an improvement and purification of them.
This can also be applied to the Reformed standards. Although the three
declarations that the Christian Reformed Church adopted and alleged to be
interpretations of the confessions are not embodied in the original standards,
these declarations might be in harmony and agreement with the fundamental
principles of the Reformed faith as expressed in the Three Forms of Unity.

If
this possibility would prove to be a fact, I would still have serious
objections against the procedure the Christian Reformed Church followed in
adopting the three points. They certainly should have been submitted to the
judgment of the churches before they were finally adopted as being of the same
value and force as the Reformed standards. But my chief objection—that these appendages are corruptions of the
confessions—would be removed.

This chapter
purposes to investigate whether this possibility is true with respect to the
first point. I have shown that the first point is an augmentation of and an
addition to the standards. The question before us is whether this first
appendage is in harmony with the principles of the standards or whether it is a
deviation from the line of the Reformed faith.

The appendage
adopted in the first point is that God in the preaching of the gospel is gracious
to all who hear. More briefly, the preaching of the gospel is common grace.

In order to be
entirely fair, it is proper and expedient first to consider, what does the
Christian Reformed Church accept as the meaning of the first appendage? I must
warn the reader that he will be greatly disappointed if he expects a concise
and definite answer to this question from the leaders of the Christian Reformed
Church. Their answers are ambiguous and evasive.

This would not be
the case if the first point had been adopted by avowedly Arminian churches.
Then it would be comparatively easy to obtain an answer to the question. But
the first point originated in a professedly Reformed denomination, and the
leaders of that denomination most emphatically deny that the doctrine of
Arminius is at all embodied in the first point. They emphasize that the
Christian Reformed Church firmly believes in the doctrines of predestination,
sovereign election and reprobation, particular atonement in Christ, and
irresistible and efficacious grace in the application of all the blessings of
salvation to the elect only. They plead “not guilty” to the indictment of
Arminianism. They even claim not to understand how the Protestant Reformed
Churches can honestly accuse them of this heresy insofar as the church
maintains the doctrine expressed in the first point. Writes Louis Berkhof:

The controversy that was carried on had the very usual effect that the
very air became impregnated with various false conceptions. Some busy
themselves to spread the tale that the three points are three bullets from
Arminian canons that shot a terrible breach in our fortifications. The question
whether they do so in good faith, we will not discuss. But the fact is that
many good people believe that presentation, while others, confused thereby ask
the question, what is truth?13

Our church stands as firm as ever in the conviction that Christ died
with the intention to save only the elect, although she recognizes the infinite
value of the sacrifice of Christ as being sufficient for the sins of the whole
world. He who alleges that synod seeks covertly to introduce the Arminian
doctrine of universal atonement becomes guilty of false representation.14

It is even
emphasized that synod plainly declared in the first point that the saving grace
of God is shown only to the elect unto eternal life. Is all this not thoroughly
Reformed and free from the taint of Arminianism?

I answer
affirmatively. What Berkhof writes in the above citation is undoubtedly
Reformed. The same is true of the first point insofar as it declares that the
saving grace of God is bestowed only on the elect.

But let us not be
deceived by these declarations of soundness in the truth. The first point
reminds one of the two-faced head of Janus, a Roman idol distinguished by the
remarkable feature of having two faces and looking in two opposite directions.
There is a marked similarity between Janus and the first point. The latter is
also two-faced and casts wistful looks in opposite directions. The same may be
asserted of the attempts to explain the first point by the leaders of the
Christian Reformed Church.

The difference is
that while the two faces of heathen Janus bore a perfect resemblance to each
other, the Janus of 1924 shows two totally different faces. One of his faces
reminds you of Augustine, Calvin, and Gomarus, but the other shows the
unmistakable features of Pelagius, Arminius and Episcopius. Your troubles begin
when you inquire of this two-faced oracle what may be the exact meaning of the
first point. Then this modern Janus begins to revolve, alternately showing you
one face and then the other, until you hardly know whether you are dealing with
Calvin or Arminius.

The quotations
cited above from Berkhof’s booklet on the three points show you only the Reformed
face of this Janus. If you inquire of him when he turns this face toward you,
he says, “The saving grace of God is only for the elect unto eternal life and
is bestowed on them alone.”

But compare the
following from Berkhof’s booklet: “The general and well-meaning offer of
salvation is an evidence of God’s favor toward sinners, is the Lord’s blessing
on them.” Lest we should misunderstand the professor and imagine that he refers
to only elect sinners, he adds in the same paragraph, “Scripture teaches
without doubt that we must consider the offer of salvation a temporal blessing
also for those who not heed the invitation,” that is, for those who are
designated by the word of God as reprobate ungodly.15

To prove this
assertion the professor continues, “That God calls the ungodly to repentance is
presented in the holy Scriptures as a proof of his pleasure in their
salvation.”16 This may pass as long as you demand no further
definition of “the ungodly.” No one denies that God has pleasure in the
salvation of ungodly men. But when you generalize this and say that God has
pleasure in the salvation of all the
ungodly, that he is willing to save all sinners, you depart from the Reformed
line of faith and thinking. I am confident that no Reformed man will deny the
truth of this statement. Yet Berkhof departs exactly in this way from the
Reformed truths.

In the prophecy of Ezekiel we may listen to the voice of the Lord in
words that testify to his mercy: “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked
should die? saith the Lord GOD; and not that he should return from his ways and
live?” And again: “For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth [of
one who perishes in his sins], saith the Lord GOD; wherefore turn yourselves
and live ye.” These passages tell us as clearly as words can that God has no
pleasure in the death of the wicked. Note that he does not say “of elect
sinners,” but “of sinners” entirely in general. The tender calling we hear
therein witnesses of his great love for sinners and of his pleasure in the
salvation of the ungodly.17

The professor
declares in another part of his booklet that it must be evident to anyone who
can read Dutch (the professor wrote his booklet in that language) that the
first point is not tainted with Arminianism. I add that it must also be very
clear to anyone who can read Dutch that in the above quotation Berkhof teaches
that God’s love for sinners is for all the
ungodly, that God is ready to bestow the grace of Christ upon all sinners. He
even emphasizes this when he adds that the Lord in the prophecy of Ezekiel
speaks not of elect sinners, but of sinners “entirely in general.” According to
the professor’s presentation, this general love of God and desire to save
sinners is declared in the gospel.

If any other
meaning can possibly be elicited from Berkhof’s words, I will be glad to
receive instruction. His entire argument purposes to show that the grace of
God, the love of God for sinners, and the pleasure he evinces to save them do
not apply to the elect only, but to all men. If this is not the meaning of his
words in the quotations cited, I cannot see that they have any sense at all.
However indignant the professor may appear when I accuse him of Arminianism, he
certainly proves by his words that the indictment is well founded.

Other passages in
the same booklet are entirely in harmony with his defense of a general love of
God for sinners and his pleasure to save them all. Commenting on Romans 2:4, he
writes,

The explanation of this [the riches of God’s goodness [must be found in
the purpose God had in view with this revelation of his love. And what was this
purpose? Was it to cast the ungodly Jews more deeply into perdition? No, but to
lead them to repentance … But in the case of the Jews the result does not
correspond to the intention. They hardened themselves against the revelation of
God’s goodness.18

If this is not
Arminianism and Pelagianism, I cannot read Dutch; neither do I understand in
opposition to what false doctrine our fathers at Dordrecht formulated the Canons. In the last quoted passage the
professor teaches that God will lead men to repentance, that men do not want it
and harden themselves, and that in this case God’s purpose fails; the result
does not correspond to God’s intention. If this is not a defense of the error
of resistible grace, language must be extremely elusive and deceptive. But this
presentation of the matter is wholly in harmony with the professor’s view
regarding the general love of God toward the ungodly.

The same view the
professor expresses again in his interpretation of Genesis 6:3 in connection
with the second point: “The Holy Spirit resisted the ungodliness and perversity
of those generations that lived before the flood. He sought to check their
ungodliness and lead them to repentance … But the Spirit strove in vain; sin
increased rapidly.”19

I am confident
that if before 1924 I would have voiced such opinions from a Christian Reformed
pulpit under the auspices of a good Reformed consistory, the latter surely
would have refused to shake hands with me as a sign of their disapproval.

We may therefore
consider it established that the first point teaches that in the preaching of
the gospel God evinces his general love to all the ungodly, his pleasure in
their lives, and his willingness to save them all. Besides, according to
Berkhof, the same point also teaches that in the preaching there is a temporal
blessing for all men, also for those who are not saved. He points to the
examples of Ahab, who repented and whose punishment was postponed as a result of
Elijah’s preaching, and of Nineveh, which repented as a result of Jonah’s
preaching and was temporarily saved from destruction.

This is a minor
point and I can dismiss it with a few remarks.

This presentation
of the influence of the gospel on the reprobate ungodly is certainly not in
harmony with the Reformed confessions. The Heidelberg
Catechism teaches that by nature we daily increase our debt, that God is
terribly displeased with our original and actual sins, and that he will punish
them in his just judgment temporally
and eternally. Nor is this presentation in harmony with the teaching of the
word of God. Temporal blessings under the preaching of the gospel for the
ungodly reprobate? May I remind the professor of the terrible curse threatened
on the people of Israel if they refused to walk in the way of Jehovah? Will he
read Deuteronomy 28? Were not those curses literally carried out on the ungodly
nation? The professor may remark that those curses had a typical significance
and were threatened on the people of Israel under the law. I admit it. But are
not the professor’s examples taken from the Old Testament?

True, final
judgment was postponed in Ahab’s case. But note, first, that the postponement
was not under the preaching of the gospel but under the announcement of most
terrible judgment. Second, it was not a postponement of judgment for one who
utterly refused to listen to the word of God but for Ahab insofar as he still
trembled because of God’s terrible wrath. Third, Ahab was not blessed by
everything that took place in his case. Ahab’s house was not destroyed in his
time, but the final execution of judgment was transferred to the next
generation. Thus postponement was entirely in harmony with God’s righteousness.
Final judgment cannot come until the sinner has shown himself to be utterly
hard. Ahab still feared and trembled under the announcement of God’s judgment.
He seemed to be repentant. Hence that God might appear perfectly just and
righteous when he judges the final judgment was postponed until the next
generation. Fourth, Ahab did not personally escape punishment at all, for he
died, and the dogs licked his blood.

All such examples
clearly show how desperately the fathers of the three points need some real
scriptural proof for their contentions.

Certainly nothing
in the word of God contradicts the view that the men of Nineveh were really
converted. Not all were converted, but only the elect whom God had in the city
at that time for his prophetic purpose. Everything is in favor of such an
interpretation. This is evident from Jonah 3:5–9, which describes the
conversion of the Ninevites. It is also clear from the Lord’s repeated
reference to the sign of Jonah the prophet, a sign of Jesus’ death and burial
and his leaving the nation of Israel to turn to the world with the gospel of
salvation. Nineveh is an old-dispensational type of the world from which Christ
calls his elect and gathers his “other sheep … which are not of this fold”
[John 10:16]. The Savior, in words that leave no doubt as to their meaning,
asserts that the men of Nineveh repented through the preaching of Jonah, while
the men of his own generation refused to repent through the preaching of one much
greater than Jonah. Sound interpretation certainly requires us to understand
the word repentance each time in the
same sense. I maintain that God for his sovereign purpose, chiefly of creating
the prophetic sign of Jonah the prophet, had some of his elect in the city of
Nineveh at the time of Jonah. They repented through his preaching, and for a
time the city was spared for their sakes. Shortly afterward the city was
destroyed.

These brief
remarks suffice to dismiss the minor question of temporal blessings as a result
of the preaching of the gospel. Of much greater importance is Berkhof’s
assertion, as an explanation of the first point, that through the preaching of
the gospel God earnestly seeks the salvation of all men and thus shows grace to
all of them. This is the heart of the question. Is such teaching in harmony
with Scripture and the confessions of the Reformed churches?

We consider this
question from two aspects. First, is it in conformity with Scripture and the
confessions to teach that there is in God the gracious purpose to save all who
hear the gospel? Second, do Scripture and the confessions teach that such a
graciously seeking operation of God proceeds from him through the preaching of
the gospel on all who hear?

It ought to be
superfluous to prove to any Reformed believer that Scripture and the
confessions teach exactly the opposite; namely, God’s gracious purpose to save
the elect only; his righteous and sovereign purpose to leave others in their
misery unto damnation; and those who offer a different presentation seek to
instil into people the destructive poison of the Pelagian errors.

To substantiate
these statements, I refer the reader to the Canons
of Dordt, which plainly teach that God has pleasure in the salvation of the
elect only; that he purposes to save them and them only; and that he
accomplishes salvation objectively and subjectively for them and in them alone.
If the first point of 1924 teaches that God earnestly seeks the salvation of
all men and that he reveals general grace in the preaching of the gospel to all
who hear, it is in direct conflict with the following article in the Canons:

This was the sovereign counsel and most gracious will and purpose of God
the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death
of his Son should extend to all the elect,
for bestowing upon them alone the
gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them
infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the
blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually
redeem out of every people, tribe nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to
salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which, together with all the
other saving fits of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them
from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after
believing; and having faithfully preserved them
even to the end, should at last bring them
free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence
forever.20

The well-informed
reader will notice that in the following description of reprobation the
infralapsarian view is maintained. Yet the article clearly teaches that in God
there is the righteous and sovereign purpose, for the manifestation of his
justice, to leave some in their misery, not to save them, but to condemn them
forever and to punish them for their sins.

What peculiarly tends to illustrate and recommend to us the eternal and
unmerited grace of election is the express testimony of sacred Scripture, that
not all, but some only, are elected, while others are passed by in the eternal
decree; whom God out of his sovereign, most just, irreprehensible and unchangeable
good pleasure, hath decreed to leave in the common misery into which they have
wilfully plunged themselves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the
grace of conversion; but permitting them in his just judgment to follow their
own way; at last, for the declaration of his justice, to condemn and punish
them forever, not only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their
other sins. And this is the decree of reprobation which by no means makes God
the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares him to
be an awful, irreprehensible and righteous judge and avenger.21

This directly
condemns the first point as explained by Berkhof, which he interprets as
teaching that in God there is a gracious purpose to save all who hear the
preaching of the gospel, not only the elect, and that this gracious purpose is
plainly declared in the gospel.

Synod rejects the errors of
those … Who use the difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end
that they may instil into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this
teaching, that God, as far as he is concerned, has been minded of applying to
all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ; but that, while some
obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life and others do not, this difference
depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered
without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy,
which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate
unto themselves this grace.

Rejection: For these, while they feign that they present this
distinction in a sound sense, seek to instil into the people the destructive
poison of the Pelagian errors.22

Let the reader
judge how far Berkhof must plead guilty to the indictment that he instils into
the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this destructive poison of the
Pelagian errors under the pretext of making a certain distinction in a sound
sense. I freely admit that he does not teach in so many words that the
difference between meriting and appropriating must be explained from the free
will of man; but I maintain that materially he teaches exactly this when he
writes that God’s purpose was to save the ungodly Jews, but in their case the
result did not correspond to the purpose of God; and when he asserts that the
Holy Spirit’s purpose was to lead men to conversion, but the Spirit’s attempts
were frustrated.

It ought to be
plain from the citations from the Canons
that the first point, as explained by Berkhof, stands condemned. According to
the Canons we may not present
salvation in a way that leaves the impression that God graciously purposes the
salvation of all who hear. Yet this is exactly the teaching of the first point
according to Berkhof’s interpretation. Therefore, the Canons unambiguously condemn Berkhof’s teaching as Pelagian, and
they certainly are not in sympathy with the view that God reveals in the
preaching of the gospel his gracious purpose to save all the hearers.

Scripture is no
less explicit in its condemnation of this teaching. In proof I could quote the
word of God almost at random, but I will limit the quotations to a few passages
that plainly deny that according to God’s intention the preaching of the gospel
is grace to all who hear.

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand
not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat,
and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be
healed. Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be
wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly
desolate, and the LORD have removed men far away, and there be a great
forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth, and it
shall return, and shall be eaten: as a teil tree, and as an oak, whose
substance is in them, when they cast their leaves: so the holy seed shall be the
substance thereof. (Isa. 6:9–13)

Berkhof considers
it a terrible doctrine that the gospel is proclaimed as a judgment and curse to
the ungodly reprobate. The first point teaches that the preaching of the gospel
is always grace according to God’s intention. But this passage from Isaiah’s
prophecy emphasizes that the gospel is preached unto a curse and a hardening of
the heart of the reprobate according to God’s definitely expressed purpose.
Isaiah was called to preach the word of God to the men of his generations so
that their eyes would be blinded, their ears would be made heavy, their hearts
would become fat, and they would not turn and be healed. In order to save the
wheat the chaff must become fully ripe unto rejection through the preaching of
the prophet. The captivity of the people and the destruction of the land and
the city are the end of Isaiah’s preaching, so that he might proclaim salvation
and restoration and glory to the remnant according to the election of grace.

Thus also the
Savior instructs his disciples in Mark 4:11–12:

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the
kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in
parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may
hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their
sins should be forgiven them.

No one will deny
that the parables belong to the preaching of the gospel. Was it the gracious
purpose of God by means of the parables to save all? In the parables did he
earnestly avow a purpose to bring all men to repentance? The contrary is true.
The Lord plainly teaches that all these things are done in parables for a
judgment and condemnation to those who are without.

These very
explicit declarations of the word of God are not contradicted by the following
texts to which synod appealed to support the teaching of the first point:

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord
GOD: and not that he should return from his ways and live? (Ezek. 18:23)

Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the
death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye,
turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezek.
33:11)

In these verses
God speaks and swears by himself, and his word is absolutely true and
unchangeable. The content of God’s oath is that he has no pleasure in the death
of the wicked and that he has pleasure in the conversion and life of the
ungodly. It is unnecessary to add anything more. Although it might be answered
from the context, the question whether the verses refer to elect or reprobate
can be left out of the discussion. God has pleasure in conversion and life. No
one denies this. He has no pleasure in impenitence and death and is terribly
displeased with the impenitent state of the wicked. No one objects to this. In
the same sense that God has no pleasure in the impenitence of the wicked, he
has no pleasure in his death. Conversion and life are inseparably connected.

These passages do
not speak of the preaching of the gospel at all. They surely contain no offer
of salvation nor declare the purpose of God in the preaching of the gospel with
respect to elect and reprobate. That it is God’s purpose through the preaching
of the gospel to bestow the grace of conversion on all who hear is certainly
not implied in the passages. If synod imagines that a general offer of grace is
in these passages, it is most certainly mistaken, for there is no offer
whatever.

The first
question, whether God through the preaching of the gospel reveals a gracious
purpose to save all who hear, can be considered settled. The first declaration
of the synod of 1924 is in conflict with Scripture and the confessions. The
first appendage is not in harmony with the fundamental principles of the
Reformed standards.

Do Scripture and
the confessions teach that through the preaching of the gospel a gracious
operation of God proceeds on all who hear the word?

It has always been
considered Reformed to maintain that the means of grace have no power in and of
themselves. They are means of grace only through an operation of the Holy
Spirit on the hearts of those who receive them. This is true of the word of
sacraments. Without the gracious operation of the Spirit, the word is not
efficacious unto salvation. No grace and no blessing can proceed from that word
as such. In light of this truth we see that the question above is closely
related to the first point, which declares that God in the general preaching of
the gospel, or offer of salvation, is gracious to all who hear.

If the operation
of the preaching on the hearts of the hearers depends on the gracious operation
of the Spirit of Christ, according to Scripture and the confessions is there
such an operation of grace concomitant with the preaching of the gospel on the
hearts of all the hearers? If the confessions deny this and the Scriptures
declare the very opposite, is it not evident that the first point must be
considered a product of the vain imaginations of men?

The Canons teach as follows:

When God accomplishes his good pleasure in the elect, or works in them
true conversion, he not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to
them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by his Holy Spirit, that they may
rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of God, but by the
efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit he pervades the inmost recesses of the
man; he opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which
was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which, though
heretofore dead, he quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory, he
renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it, that, like
a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions.23

The point of this
article is that when it is God’s good pleasure to bestow grace on sinners and
show them loving-kindness, God not only causes the gospel to be preached
externally to them, but he also actually accomplishes the grace he wants to
bestow in the hearts of men and thus efficaciously brings them to salvation
under the preaching of the gospel. He accomplishes this only in the elect.

This is emphasized
when the Canons reject the errors of
those

… who teach that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common
grace (by which they [the Remonstrants] understand the light of nature), of the
gifts still left in them after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their
good use a greater, namely, the evangelical or saving grace and salvation
itself. And that in this way God on his part shows himself ready to reveal
Christ unto all men, since he applies to all sufficiently and efficiently the
means necessary to conversion.

Rejection: For the experience of all ages and the Scripture do both
testify that this is untrue. He showeth
his word unto Jacob, his statues and ordinances unto Israel. He hath not dealt
so with any nation: and as for his ordinances, they have not known them
(Ps. 145:19–20). Who in the generations
gone by suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways (Acts 14:16).
And: And they (Paul and his
companions) having been forbidden of the
Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia, and when they were come over against
Mysia, they assayed to go into Bythinia, and the Spirit suffered them not (Acts
16:6–7).24

The heart of this
article is that the Lord is not ready to reveal Christ to all. Without such a
revealing, gracious operation of God the natural man cannot attain to
salvation, for he is by nature darkness. Although he comes into contact with
the preaching of the gospel, he cannot receive the grace of God by his natural
light and gifts. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness comprehends
it not. Such a revealing operation of God does not proceed with the gospel on
all who hear, but only on the elect unto eternal life. On this operation,
however, everything depends. How then can the first point maintain that the
preaching of the gospel is grace to all the hearers and that God purposes to
bestow grace on everyone who comes into contact with the gospel? From whatever
point of view one considers the first declaration of synod, it clearly
conflicts with the standards of the Reformed churches. It can never become an
integral part of them.

The word of God is
much more emphatic and explicit on this point. It speaks not only of a saving,
illuminating, revealing, converting, and quickening operation of God through
the preaching of the gospel on the hearts of men, but also emphatically of a
hiding and hardening operation of God’s righteous wrath under and through the
preaching of the same gospel. This can be proven by many texts.

The Savior thanks
the Father that according to his good pleasure, he has hidden these things from
the wise and the prudent and revealed them to babes. The context shows very
clearly that Jesus refers to the actual fruit of his preaching and labors until
that moment, particularly in the cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum.
He had preached the gospel of the kingdom to them. The result was that the wise
and prudent had rejected it and the babes had received it with joy. How does
the Lord explain that twofold result of his preaching? Does he say that God had
been gracious to all through his preaching, but that the wise had rejected it? On
the contrary, the Savior ascends to the heights of God’s good pleasure and
explains that God accomplished his pleasure in those who believed. But God hid
those things from the wise and the prudent, although the gospel had been
preached to them as well as to the others (Matt. 11:25–26).

John 12:39-49
teaches explicitly that the wicked Jews could not believe because God had
blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so that they should not be
converted and healed. Romans 9:18 emphatically asserts that God is merciful to
whom he wills and hardens whom he wills. Does not the word of God plainly teach
that under the ministry of the word God also gives a spirit of slumber, eyes
that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear (Rom. 11:7–10)?
The apostle glories that the ministers of the gospel are at all times a sweet
savor of Christ unto God, both in those who are saved and in those that perish,
whether they be a savor of life unto life or a savor of death unto death (II
Cor. 2:14–16).

I need not quote
more texts; Scripture is full of similar testimonies. The above proof more than
sufficiently show that the first point is an error and that it is surely an
evident untruth that the first point is a mere interpretation of the confessions.
It is neither explicitly taught in the standards of the Reformed churches nor
implied therein. Nor can the content of the first point be fitted into the
whole of the confessions and become an integral part of them. On the contrary,
the first point denies the truth that always has been maintained by the
Reformed churches and is embodied in their standards: the grace of God in and
through the preaching of the gospel is for the elect and for them alone.

In conclusion let
us recall the scriptural and Reformed line of the truth. Before the foundation
of the world, God in sovereign mercy chose his people unto eternal glory. In
their stead and on their behalf he sent his only begotten Son to suffer and die
for them vicariously and to reconcile them with God. These elect become
partakers of the blessings of salvation merited by Christ only through
efficacious grace. These elect he blesses and keeps by the power of his grace
so they persevere to the end and no one may take their crown.

God also rejected
others to become vessels of wrath fitted to destruction. Some of these he also
brings under the preaching of the gospel and even within the pale of the
historical development of his covenant, not to be gracious to them, but that in
and through them sin may become manifest in all its horror and God may be just
when he judges. They will be beaten with double stripes, and it would have been
better for them had they never known the way of peace and righteousness (II.
Pet. 2:20–21).

The first point of
1924 is an appendage to the confessions and stands in glaring contradiction to
the fundamental principles of the Reformed faith. It is well adapted to instil
into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced the destructive poison of the
Pelagian errors. Although the leaders of the churches bear the greater sin, all
the members of the Christian Reformed Church are responsible for the three
points and are duty-bound to reject them as repugnant to sound doctrine.